idyllic: this is a contentious area. the fact that it is so the case never fails to surprise me because i assume there's a common factual starting point to some things at least relative to which one can argue one line or another but still with respect to something more or less agreed upon. when it comes to israel/palestine it seems that there are 2 distinct realities, that of the israeli right, which is also that of the dominant organization in the united states that speak in the name of israel, and that of the palestinian people. somewhere in between there is the israeli left, which represents a range of viewpoints that tend to get erased in us-based debates. which is a shame because that range of viewpoints is the most direct way to undo the either/or that is at the center of the contentiousness.
what makes this interesting i think despite the contentiousness and result that people rarely move in any given debate from the point they start from is the relation between starting point and information flows, the extent to which from one starting point you can, if you like, locate data that's entirely self-confirming of the viewpoint from which you start. you don't have to of course, but it's easy to fall into.
for what it's worth, i may argue from politcal viewpoints that are well to the left but i read around across the political spectrum. it's important to understand what the adversary is going to do, just in case the game gets interesting. but it rarely gets that interesting in debates like these, for the reasons i outlined above.
btw the israeli navy killed 4 palestinians seemingly for wearing diving gear. as usual there's mutually exclusive fogs of disinformation. but what i found strange was an idf spokesman who felt the need to mention the therapeutic value these killings would have for the idf itself. that seemed to speak volumes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...estinians-gaza